Band Gives Away Latest Album After Label Attempts To Shelve It Until 'Sometime Next Year'

from the how-does-NOW-sound? dept

Well, if nothing else, you can't knock Death Grips' work ethic. After becoming an indie sensation with their critically-acclaimed 2011 debut, "Exmilitary" (still available for free on Soundcloud), Death Grips signed with Epic and released "The Money Store" in April, 2012.

Rather than rest on their newly-signed laurels, Death Grips announced that they would release another album in October. And release it they did, only without Epic's involvement or blessing. The unofficial release of their third album began with this tweet:

The label wouldn't confirm a release date for NO LOVE DEEP WEB "till next year sometime"

"The label wouldn't confirm a release date for NO LOVE DEEP WEB 'till next year sometime'"

Death Grips was looking to put another album out in October and if Epic couldn't keep up with their release schedule, so be it. Another tweet followed, implying that Epic itself hadn't even heard the new album yet:

And away they went, dumping their brand new album into various file lockers and tweeting the links to every new upload and blog entry referring to their impromptu release party.

We only have Death Grips' version of the events at this point, but it looks as though release date negotiations must have gone off the rails sometime on September 30th. A string of tweets paraphrasing a sample used on "Exmilitary's" first track, "Beware," set the stage:

He came to me with money in his hand
He offered me I didn't ask him. I wasn't knockin someones door down. I was running from that.
I looked at it and said this is a bigger jail that I just got out of.
I run the underworld guy. I decide who does what and where they do it at.
What am I gonna run around and act like I'm some teeny bopper somewhere for someone else's money?
I ROLL THE NICKELS. THE GAME IS MINE. I DEAL THE CARDS.

2. The album art (definitely NSFW -- unless you're treating this person for erectile dysfunction or are This Guy) was still under discussion.

3. Epic wasn't happy with Death Grips topping the Bittorrent charts, legal or no. Death Grips seems to be fine with it. They're still giving away their first album at Soundcloud (although you're more than welcome to purchase it). Possibly they were considering "alternate distribution" and Epic iced the album in order to talk some sense into them. Not that this plan worked...

So, what have we learned? For starters, pissing off your artists in this day and age can have some serious repercussions, especially if you're in the business of collecting a chunk of every album sold. Windows are made to be broken. Buyer beware. Etc. Does this mean you should kowtow to every demand from your signed artists? No, but this does mean that setting release dates arbitrarily simply won't work anymore.

You also might want to take a good look at the artist you're signing and ask yourself, "Is this a good fit for a major label?" Between the explicit album cover, the Bittorrent numbers, the abrasive, uncompromising musical style, the fact that their first album sounded "like it was recorded under someone's house with a webcam" and the general volatility of the recording industry, maybe everyone involved should have realized it was never going to work out.

[insert IP maximalist shill comment here about how the band is a bunch of evil pirate freetards, despite the same Anonymous Coward melodramatically weeping for the sake of the poor artists on other article comment threads and forgetting to make the distinction between artists' interests and IP-holding corporate interests when they support giving the corporations more power and money]

As an abstract issue, I'm fascinated with the slowdown in album release schedules. 2 albums a year, or maybe 3, was the standard through the 1960's: the Beatles released 14 albums in 7 years, slowing to one per year at the end of their career. 1 per year was the standard work rate when I became a pop music fan in the 1970s, and that meant that every year through high school and college there would be a new release from faves like Jethro Tull and Talking Heads. (Stop mocking me, please.)

But now? 2-3 years seems to be the minimum between major label releases, and gaps of 5-10 years are common. In my day, we called that "retirement." How can artists connect with fans when the fans' lives have changed so much between releases? If you liked a band in junior high, you probably aren't going to like their followup album when you are a college sophomore.

Re:

Why? They just pulled a successful scam.

They get an advance from a major label, record a spiffy new record in a real studio, buy themselves some nice new gear and cars with the rest of the money, then, knowing the album will never recoup and that they're going to get dropped anyway, they just leak it themselves. They then get free publicity, exposure for any upcoming tours, and they get to keep all the windfall from said endeavors. And since they're dropped from the label, they don't owe one red cent to Epic.

Oh, and to the bozo that wrote this "article": They just put out a record in April of this year. So the record wasn't being "shelved" until 2013, it was being put on a release schedule that makes sense for a promo department and anyone else with half a brain.

Re:

I guess you missed the part of the article where it states that the band released an album in April of 2012 and that they promised their fans another album in October. If the label can't keep up with that, it's no sweat off the band's back as they seem to have solved the problem themselves. They continue to get more exposure and are delivering to their fans what they promised. They get the benefit of professional recording and mixing, the fans get their new material, and the band gets the benefit of additional concert tickets and and merchandise sales due to the increased exposure... everyone wins except the label who is increasingly being behind only because they can't provide the only service they are needed for.

And as for post above... replace the word "scam" with "innovative and successful business model" and it seems like the band gets what they want and deserve a round of high fives. I hope that's exactly how this plays out and wish them all the success they deserve. I'd never actually heard of this band until this article, but I'll definitely be checking them out when I get home.

Re: Re:

They get an advance from a major label, record a spiffy new record in a real studio, buy themselves some nice new gear and cars with the rest of the money, then, knowing the album will never recoup and that they're going to get dropped anyway, they just leak it themselves. They then get free publicity, exposure for any upcoming tours, and they get to keep all the windfall from said endeavors. And since they're dropped from the label, they don't owe one red cent to Epic.

Uhm, I know you don't read articles, or even summaries, but it's in the damn first paragraph. They signed with Epic and released an album, "The Money Store", and this was a second album. Depending on the contract they signed, they may or may not be in trouble, but they already provided the album they signed with Epic for, and this is a new one that Epic apparently didn't want to release.

Re: Re: Re:

Re:

There is a real issue here, for a bunch of reasons, most of them NOT created by the labels.

Because record sales and income from recorded music (especially to artists) isn't that good, many artists tour to support their albums - that seems to be the industry term these days for "go on the road to make money". While bands use to promote their albums, now they most promote their shows.

Add to that now that tours are often more complex, with big staging, props, lighting cues, and the like, that there is also a lead time to rehearse the upcoming show before the album releases. Add to that a normal "pre-release" single a month or two ahead of time, press, and all that... it turns into a pretty long process.

Album releases now are done more on the direction of launching successful tours. The record labels started to move to slotted releases a while back, with everything grouping into a very few release date blocks. Spring is a release time that leads into summer tours, particularly powerful these days for bands or acts that might be doing the summer festival tour thing, or for very large acts that can fill sunshine venues themselves. There is another big slot in the fall, back to school, and again closer to Christmas.

The rest of the time is generally filled in with second, third, and fourth singles off albums, or out of date releases from smaller labels, indies, and acts that the labels want to get out there by themselves - big acts can do it, or perhaps new acts with a twist.

Anyway, what happened with this band is probably not very surprising: They tried to put out too much product too quickly. An April 2012 release should still be in pretty good shape, the band should be off touring and making buzz, and has no need to push that next record out the door yet, especially because they have a previous indie record that gives them material to play live.

In recording terms, the third album is pretty much key for any band. Historically, it's comes at a time when the band is working hard, has built up a following, has done decent levels of touring, either moving up from hard rooms to soft seaters, or perhaps doing opening acts for bigger bands. The third album generally gives a band enough material to be more selective during their shows, and almost always clearly defines the band going forward.

It's also the hardest album for most bands, because it's often written at a point where their well of existing material has run dry, they had to write new stuff, and their life experiences have been different, often making the music very different.

Having to wait until spring of 2013 to refine and release a new album shouldn't be a big deal for a band. To me, these guys actions show that they may have a problem, like not enough touring dates or not enough time taken up in current album promotion. I mean, even if they are doing just 100 date tour since their album released in April, they should be nowhere near done with that. 100 dates done in a "hard run" without any real pauses still takes 20-25 weeks (5 shows a week would be a killer pace... more likely 3 to 4). The would barely be at the end of that right now, without time to record.

Re: Re:

They can promise their fans whatever they want, but when they signed with a label it meant they agreed to work with the label. And labels have release schedules for a reason; logistics, marketing, efficient use of human resources, etc.

Re: Re:

Corrected how?

Did you even read past the sentence that offended you?

Death Grips tweeted that Epic had shut down their website. Epic has since denied it had anything to do with the shutdown. Currently, Death Grips' site is still down. It's entirely possible that the sudden influx of traffic crashed it.

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Also, it must once again be reiterated on this pro-piracy propaganda site, that when a band is dropped from a label, their entire debt is forgiven."

" If the band is not doing well, the label simply terminates the contract, but the lock-out clause prevents the band from re-recording the material. Even if the label has no interest in the band, the label owns all the recordings. There is no way for the band to re-release an album on its own."

Linda Ronstadt signed a contract and received an advance, and then Capitol records figured they spent too much on her and dropped her, yet wanted her to pay them back for the debt. George Michael was required to stay with his record company and could leave, and several artists have been forced to make more albums to "pay back their debts."

Also, it must once again be reiterated on this pro-piracy propaganda site, that when a band is dropped from a label, their entire debt is forgiven.

Also, yet again, you make statements without backing them up with data, and then immediately dismiss anyone who disagrees with you as being a drinking the Kool-aid(TM) of the "pro-piracy propaganda site."

Re: Re: Re:

While I am not a fan of big labels and am eagerly waiting for them to go extinct, Epic may not have made such a mistake here in signing them. They didn't want to release the album as an official release and wanted to shelve it so the band released it themselves. All this may do in the end is provide additional exposure for the band which could in turn produce additional sales for the next official release.

Hiphop acts put out free material all the time through blogs and mixtapes. This is a proven strategy towards connecting with your fans and gaining exposure. That in turn means more money for the band and for their label. Epic may not be able to capitalize on this release, but that is mostly their choice and their reliance on doing things the "old way".

Re: Re:

This comment thread gets the most use of

This comment thread gets the most use of "clicking the report button" that I have ever seen. Fully 1/3 of the comments are from 2 asshat AC's who are trying to nothing more than attack the band and the site. No discussion of any of the merits of any of the viewpoints, just "they suck, you suck, this site sucks, ad hom forever" bullshit crying like a little baby.

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re:

What rumor mongering needs to be debunked?

About 12 hours after uploading NO LOVE DEEP WEB to their own site, it went down. Death Grips tweeted that Epic had shut down their website. Epic has since denied it had anything to do with the shutdown.

This one? What about this following bit?

It's entirely possible that the sudden influx of traffic crashed it.

So Mike didn't say that Epic did, with certainty, shut down the site. Failure to read the article is no excuse.

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

Except you have no credibility. Without knowing who you are, any credibility attached to it means exactly nada here. You can claim anything you want, but without backing it up we aren't about to believe you. Unlike Mike who links back to what he's talking about.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Just because a freetard says I have no credibility doesn't change the fact that I actually do. Your opinion means nothing and most certainly doesn't change anything. I'm not telling you who I am. Tough for you. Won't change the fact that in reality, the real world in which things happen to people, I do.

More importantly, anyone can read my posts on this thread and then read the ones from the piracy-loving freetards here, and it's pretty obvious which person speaks from experience.

creative commons

Hey, the band Death Grips didn’t just “release an album for free”: they allow anyone to make money with it.

According to the Archive.org download link they’ve posted themselves, this album is indeed released under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license, a veeery open one. Of course, it let people share and remix the music, but contrary to the previous license they chose for Ex-Military, it also authorizes commercial uses without asking permission, as long as the music is still credited to the band. Yes, you can use Death Grips music for a TV ad (for an energy drink maybe?), or use it in a big commercial movie. You don’t have to wait for a physical release date, you can start a record label instead, press and sell 10 000 copies of this album without even asking the band NOR Epic/Sony if they are okay with that. read this post: http://amour-discipline.org/zine/death-grips-stick-their-cock-in-the-eye-of-sony-music/

Re:

Re: Re: Re:

I would say it's more of a band signing up for something that they didn't want, thinking the deal was all their way. It's not, and as soon as they get caught having to play by their deal, they act like children.

It's pretty classic. It's like hiring a financial planner, and then when he gets everything set up, you raid all the accounts to buy beer.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Just because a freetard says I have no credibility doesn't change the fact that I actually do."

Actually, you don't. You've yet to provide any sort of references to prove your credibility. You've yet to reveal who exactly you are, with proof verifying you are said person with any credibility. And so on and so forth.

Back at you sweetheart. You can say you're as "credible" as you want, still doesn't make it so.

"I'm not telling you who I am."

So we've already established. Basically, you're nobody. And because you're nobody you hide behind the veil of "I can't tell you who I am, but suffice it to say I'm kind of a big deal". Which is the same as saying, "Yeah, I'm nobody. But I like to pretend I'm somebody online. It makes me feel better about my non-existent credibility."

"Tough for you."

More like tough for you. Since the rest of us are already sure you're nobody and until you present any kind of ACTUAL proof showing otherwise, no one's going to believe you. Going "blah blah blah I can't hear you because I'm somebody blah blah blah" won't change that. Tough. For you.

"Won't change the fact that in reality, the real world in which things happen to people, I do."

Aww. That's too cute. You know what? If you say that enough times, it still won't come true. But I bet it gets you through your pathetic day. Barely.

"More importantly, anyone can read my posts on this thread and then read the ones from the piracy-loving freetards here, and it's pretty obvious which person speaks from experience."

Yeah, and that person is definitely not you. It might not be any of the others commenting, but it damn sure isn't you.

Also, I fail to see how anyone up to this point has actually presented anything in the way of evidence, implied or other wise, for you to call anyone here "piracy-loving freetards". Unless calling you out for your bullshit qualifies as "piracy-loving". But that might just be the anger talking. I know if I got called out on something that wasn't true I'd pitch a fit and start insulting people. Oh, wait. I wouldn't. Because I'm not a child. I'd do the adult thing and present proof, even to those who share a viewpoint I disagree with, supporting any/all claims I made about myself. Just to prove them wrong and show that I wasn't making things up.

[pats you on your troll head] There, there sweetie. When the teacher and/or your parents said that you could one day be anything you wanted to be, they didn't actually mean it. They were just trying to humor you. The sad reality is that even at an early age you proved you had nothing to contribute to society or the world at large, and rather than shatter what little self-esteem you had (and what even littler remained as you aged) they decided to lie to you. It happens. No need to take out your anger on the world though just for pointing out how non-credible and definitely unimportant you are.

Oh yeah, one more thing. [points at what I just wrote] THAT is how you talk down to somebody. And it's quite possible to do in a non-childish tone. When you're out of high school you might just be able to talk and write like an adult. But don't worry, you've still got what like 3 or 4 years to go til you finish. You just might learn something by the time you graduate. Doubtful as that is though.

Re:

Re: Re: Re:

"Except way more music is being recorded today...maybe not through your outdated structure...but I have way more access to new music today than I did 10 years ago."

You miss the point. Who is making that new music? Is that new music of any great quality? Does anyone want it?

The good news? The tools allow anyone to make music. The bad news? The tools allow anyone to make music. Looking at someone like say Marcus making his horrid opus to a toilet seat or whatever it was, it's clear that while volume has increased, quality is lacking.

quantity != quality

Piracy doesn't hurt the poor quality stuff, nobody wants it. People don't pirate Marcus's crap, because nobody wants it. They pirate the latest LABEL music, because they want it. But the more they take out of the recorded music universe, the more pressure is put on bands to do things that make them a living. If recording music isn't making them money, it becomes more of a necessary evil, a punishment for being able to perform live. The result? They do it as infrequently as possible.

So instead, you mislead yourself by looking at the high volume of sludge coming though the "series of tubes", and try to act like it's vintage wine. It's not. It's sludge.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Also, it must once again be reiterated on this pro-piracy propaganda site, that when a band is dropped from a label, their entire debt is forgiven.

It must be again reiterated that this is not even remotely true.

When a band is dropped from their label, they are released from the obligations to record future albums under their contract. But the copyrights (and masters) for the already-produced albums remain with the label.

And their debts are not "forgiven." They still have to be paid back out of their royalties from the records that are already released. Just like they would be if they were still on the label.

Just a little bit of factual information in case some poor bastard actually believes that the above A.C. is not a liar and major label apologist.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Oh dear, personal opinion masquerading as fact, pointless ad hominems, obsessive attacks on someone who's never claimed to be a professional musician, flailing blanket statements and assumptions that fail with a moment's examination... You're losing it again aren't you?

Excuse me, I have to go and listen to the high quality music I legally bought from an independent source and the alternative media I switched to instead of listening to the corporate shite shovelled by your masters. Enjoy the crappy radio hits you so enjoy while they die their deserved death. Your crying is just getting more pathetic.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Major labels can't promote more than one record at a time? I thought they were the marketing machine that all bands should aspire to sign with so they can sell more copies? You're now saying they're incapable of handling multiple releases from an artist in a year and would rather piss fans off by withholding an otherwise completed album? An album that many would happily pay for but are not allowed to because the label hasn't decided what they want to do yet?

Funny how you'd focus on the semantic difference between "shelve" and "delay", rather than the fundamental problems of outdated marketing tactics that annoy both fans and artists alike. Windowing a completed release causes far more harm than good in today's market.

Oh, and I'm sure that the album was guaranteed a release next year? There's no chance that the unspecified release date would have been pushed back and then the status possibly changed to shelve it if the label changed their mind? That never happens, right?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

but the lock-out clause prevents the band from re-recording the material. Even if the label has no interest in the band, the label owns all the recordings. There is no way for the band to re-release an album on its own."

There's some truth to that statement, but it is misleading. It also mixes up two concepts. The label owns the specific recordings of said songs, but they don't own the songs themselves.

It's true that a band can never (generally speaking) get a shelved album released, but it's not true that they can never re-record those songs.

It's typical for a contract to stipulate that an artist can't re-record material presented to the label, but there is just as typically a well-defined limit to that term. It's fairly easy to get it added to a contract; but the artist has to know to ask for it. My old record deal locked out re-recordings for five years. No big deal, if you ask me.

It's also not terribly difficult to get clauses that void the contract if the label refuses to release an album. An artist might have to give concessions for it, like a lesser advance/royalty rate/etc. Admittedly, this can be hard for a new artist with no leverage, but if they hire a good lawyer they can avoid being 'ripped off.'

(I feel the need to point out here that the overwhelming majority of record deals, in mine and my acquaintances' experience, are straightforward and transparent. While they're obviously slanted to protect the label's interests, they are not designed to screw the artist; regardless of the sensationalism of the headlines you've seen. Artists, again in my experience, are MUCH more likely to be taken advantage of by their managers (by far the most predatory) and the other members of their team. Especially whomever oversees the finances.)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Using the word "debt" is a little confusing to people without label experience, I think. It's not capital-D debt, the kind that affects your credit. As in, it's not a personal debt in most cases (ltlw0lf above brings up some instances of debt being attached to the person that I am not familiar with, so I can't comment on that)

But yeah, nothing is "forgiven," and the balance on the advance/everything else must still be recouped.

And if the artist hasn't paid attention to the cross-collateralization aspects of their signings, they might find themselves paying back an old label with new royalties twenty years down the road. This is one major source of a lot of artists' complaints about royalties; their newer success is being siphoned off to pay back for an album flop financed by their first label.

Re: Re:

Not to mention that a lot (read: most) musicians also have to find day jobs and work full time outside of music when they're not touring these days. Even those with record deals. Especially those with indie record deals. I was surprised to learn that Frank Black of the Pixies still works in shipping and receiving in his "off" time from music (or did, as recently as four years ago. Maybe the reunion has put him in a better place).

Re: Re: Re:

Not to mention that a lot (read: most) musicians also have to find day jobs and work full time outside of music when they're not touring these days. Even those with record deals.

Whether fortunately or unfortunately, this has always been the case. Almost nobody on a label made money from recorded music; they always made money from touring.

Even the highest-grossing artists in the world always made more money from touring than they ever did from recorded music royalties. For example, the highest-grossing musical artist in 2004 was Paul McCartney. How much of his music-related income was due to royalties from recorded music? Less than 15%. And that was pretty typical at the time - of the top 35 earning musicians, two made the majority of their money from royalties off of recorded music. (And those were also producers of other artists' albums.)

If you view copyright as a way for artists to actually gain income, then copyright has always been a complete failure.